UNION OF INDIA versus ALAPAN BANDYOPADHYAY

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 259 · Decided: 06-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
259
UNION OF INDIA
v.
ALAPAN BANDYOPADHYAY
(Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2022)
JANUARY 06, 2022
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND C. T RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: ss.19, 25 – Power of
chairman to transfer cases from one bench to another – High Court
setting aside the order of transfer passed by the tribunal falling
within the jurisdiction of another High Court - Maintainability/
sustainability of the order – Power of judicial review over order of
transfer under Art. 226/227 of the Constitution – Respondent then
Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal, filed application u/s.
19 before the tribunal, Kolkata Bench challenging the disciplinary
proceedings initiated against him alleging failure to attend review
meeting – Pending consideration, the appellant-UOI filed petition
u/s 25 seeking transfer of case from Kolkata to Delhi before the
Principal Bench, Delhi – Transfer petition allowed – Challenge to,
by the respondent before the High Court of Calcutta – High Court
set aside the order passed by Principal Bench, Delhi while passing
adverse remarks against the Chairman of the tribunal – On appeal,
held: Power of judicial review of an order transferring an original
application pending before a Bench of the Tribunal to another Bench
u/s. 25 can be judicially reviewed only by a Division Bench of the
High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing
the same, falls – Division Bench of the High Court does not have
jurisdiction to set aside order passed by the Tribunal falling within
the jurisdiction of another High Court – Any decision of a tribunal
(including u/s 25 of the Act) can only be scrutinized by a High
Court having territorial jurisdiction over the tribunal –
Furthermore, no exceptional ground(s) exists to make scathing and
disparaging remarks and observations against the Principal Bench
of the Tribunal, thus, liable to be expunged – Impugned judgment
and final order passed by the High Court at Calcutta is to be held
as one passed without jurisdiction and is ab initio void, and is set
aside – Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 -
rr. 6 , r. 4(5)(a) & (b) – Constitution of India, Arts. 226 & 227.
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 259
259
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Once the High Court found the order impugned
as one passed by the Principal Bench, the High Court should
have confined its consideration firstly, to decide its own territorial
jurisdiction for exercising the power of judicial review over the
order or transfer in the correct perspective, without reference
to the bundle of facts constituting the cause of action for
application before the Tribunal, Kolkata Bench founded on the
cause of action referred to in Rule 6(2) of the Procedure Rules
that decides the place of filing of an O.A. [Para 15][274-A-C]
1.2 The cause of action for filing an Original Application
under section 19 of the Act to redress any grievance and the
cause of action for challenging an order of transfer of such an
application from the Bench where it was filed and pending, to
another Bench are different and distinct. [Para 6][265-F-G]
1.3 Dictum laid down in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India
‘s case clarified to mean that all decisions of tribunals would be
subject to the scrutiny before a division bench of the High Court
within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular tribunal falls.
No further interpretation on the said issue is permissible. The
law declared by constitution bench cannot be revisited by bench
of lesser quorum or by High courts. [Para 16][276-B-F]
1.4 The power of judicial review of an order transferring an
original application pending before a Bench of the Tribunal to
another Bench under Section 25 of the Act can be judicially
reviewed only by a Division Bench of the High Court within whose
territorial jurisdiction the Bench passing the same, falls. [Para
17][277-B-C]
1.5 No exceptional ground(s) exists in the case to make
scathing and disparaging remarks and observations against the
Principal Bench of the Tribunal. [Para 8][269-F-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
261
1.6 Accordingly, impugned judgment and final order passed
by the High Court at Calcutta is to be held as one passed without
jurisdiction and hence, it is ab initio void. Impugned Judgement
set aside. [Para 18][277-F-G]
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC
261 : [1997] 2 SCR 1186 – followed.
Bhavesh Motiani v. Union of India 2019 SCC OnLine

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.